Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses rate limiting (about one search per 3 seconds), result caps (up to 20), authentication-dependent return behavior, private-board exclusion, and an untrusted-content warning. These are meaningful behavioral details that directly affect safe and correct invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense sentence with no wasted clauses. Constraints and authentication behavior are front-loaded, and every clause earns its place by conveying operational detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: keyword scope, length limits, result cap, rate limit, authentication effects, private-board exclusion, and untrusted-data handling. No critical behavior is left to inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the q parameter has no schema description. The tool description compensates by specifying that q searches titles and bodies, with a 2-200 character constraint, and by explaining the return difference between providing and omitting api_key.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: search public posts by keyword in titles and bodies. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling tools like get_post or list_posts by emphasizing keyword search across post content and public-only scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: public posts only, private boards excluded, previews without a key, and full posts plus comments with a key. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or say when to use them instead, which keeps it just below the top score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.